Congressional Quarterly

Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday insisted that the Air Force fix what Defense Department officials described as the U.S. military’s loss of focus in safeguarding its nuclear weapons.

Senators from both parties demanded answers about an incident last August in which a B-52 bomber flew from an air base in North Dakota to one in Louisiana with six cruise missiles onboard that the crew did not know were carrying nuclear warheads, each with destructive power 10 times that of the bomb that obliterated Hiroshima. It took 36 hours before anyone missed the weapons.

Defense Department officials told the panel the incident reflected a waning emphasis on nuclear-weapons procedures across the U.S. military but they insisted the stockpile is nonetheless secure. Committee Republicans, while acknowledging the seriousness of the incident, emphasized the weapons were not in a condition that would have allowed them to detonate.

But Democrats stressed that if military personnel do not know they are handling nuclear weapons, they are less likely to follow procedures designed to safeguard them from terrorists. And even if a warhead could not have exploded in a nuclear reaction, Democrats said, the potentially deadly plutonium inside might have scattered in an aircraft crash.

“No breach of nuclear procedures of this magnitude has ever occurred,” said Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich).

The hearing revealed that during the August incident at least 25 different people in the Air Force did not do their jobs in failing to discover that actual warheads, as opposed to dummies, had been put on the cruise missiles.

Republicans sought to put the incident in context.

“The American public were never in danger if there had been an accident,” said John W. Warner (R-Va).

InfraGard. Coming to a SC neighborhood near you, and keeping an eye on you. To join SC InfraGard go here. Be advised, it is a bit of a secret society composed of CEOs – one of whom has to recommend you for membership.

By Matthew Rothschild
The Progressive

Today, more than 23,000 representatives of private industry are working quietly with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The members of this rapidly growing group, called InfraGard, receive secret warnings of terrorist threats before the public does- and, at least on one occasion, before elected officials. In return, they provide information to the government, which alarms the ACLU. But there may be more to it than that. One business executive, who showed me his InfraGard card, told me they have permission to “shoot to kill” in the event of martial law. InfraGard is “a child of the FBI,” says Michael Hershman, the chairman of the advisory board of the InfraGard National Members Alliance and CEO of the Fairfax Group, an international consulting firm.

InfraGard started in Cleveland back in 1996, when the private sector there cooperated with the FBI to investigate cyber threats.

“Then the FBI cloned it,” says Phyllis Schneck, chairman of the board of directors of the InfraGard National Members Alliance, and the prime mover behind the growth of InfraGard over the last several years.

InfraGard itself is still an FBI operation, with FBI agents in each state overseeing the local InfraGard chapters. (There are now 86 of them.) The alliance is a nonprofit organization of private sector InfraGard members.

“We are the owners, operators, and experts of our critical infrastructure, from the CEO of a large company in agriculture or high finance to the guy who turns the valve at the water utility,” says Schneck, who by day is the vice president of research integration at Secure Computing.

“At its most basic level, InfraGard is a partnership between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the private sector,” the InfraGard website states. “InfraGard chapters are geographically linked with FBI Field Office territories.”

In November 2001, InfraGard had around 1,700 members. As of late January, InfraGard had 23,682 members, according to its web site, which adds that “350 of our nation’s Fortune 500 have a representative in InfraGard.”

To join, each person must be sponsored by “an existing InfraGard member, chapter, or partner organization.” The FBI then vets the applicant. On the application form, prospective members are asked which aspect of the critical infrastructure their organization deals with. These include: agriculture, banking and finance, the chemical industry, defense, energy, food, information and telecommunications, law enforcement, public health, and transportation.

FBI Director Robert Mueller addressed an InfraGard convention on August 9, 2005. At that time, the group had less than half as many members as it does today. “To date, there are more than 11,000 members of InfraGard,” he said. “From our perspective that amounts to 11,000 contacts . . . and 11,000 partners in our mission to protect America.” He added a little later, “Those of you in the private sector are the first line of defense.”

He urged InfraGard members to contact the FBI if they “note suspicious activity or an unusual event.” And he said they could sic the FBI on “disgruntled employees who will use knowledge gained on the job against their employers.”

In an interview with InfraGard after the conference, which is featured prominently on the InfraGard members’ website, Mueller says: “It’s a great program.”

The ACLU is not so sanguine.

Continue reading →

By Jean Hardisty

Romance and marriage proposals are in the air on Valentine’s Day. Unfortunately, cupid isn’t the only matchmaker hard at work this season. An increasing number of low-income women find themselves pushed to the altar — not by their relations or suitors, but by the federal government.

“The Department of Health and Human Services is not going to run a dating service,” declared Wade Horn in the early days of the George W. Bush administration. But Horn, a leader of the rightist “fatherhood movement” during the 1990s, introduced policies promoting marriage as a cure for poverty while running HHS’ Administration for Children and Families from 2001 to 2007.

Despite his “dating service” denial, Horn saw to it that government grants powered a multimillion-dollar marriage industry made up of secular and faith-based groups which encourage low-income women — especially welfare recipients — to marry and bring a father into their families. Needless to say, the administration applies only the most narrow and traditional definition of “family.”

Grants made to marriage promotion programs have ballooned while at the same time federal benefits have been cut for all low-income families and those unable to meet their own needs. The scale of government funding for this inane and completely unproven bit of social experimentation is alarming. The 2005 Deficit Reduction Act allocated $100 million annually for marriage promotion programs and $50 million for fatherhood programs over fiscal years 2006 – 2010, or a total of $750 million. The administration’s Charitable Choice Fund — which in 2004 had a budget of $2 billion — also makes grants to promote marriage, as does its $30 million Compassion Capital Fund. Many of these millions serve to fuel the expansion of conservative evangelical organizations.

Continue reading →

Democrats divided not by the issues but by a feeling and a theory
By E.J. Dionne
Truthdig.com

This helps explain why the preferences of voters in the Democratic presidential primaries so far have gyrated so wildly. In the absence of deep divisions on policy, Democrats have been cut loose from their ideological moorings. Philosophical unity has bred new forms of conflict.

Barack Obama has surged to rough parity with Hillary Clinton in the national polls not because Democrats reject her carefully thought-out solutions to the central public problems but because he has created in the party’s rank and file a feeling of liberation-from intimidation by Republicans, from old divisions, from history itself.

At a packed rally in a downtown square here on Sunday, emblematic of those Obama has staged across the country, the candidate drew the usual applause for the usual Democratic applause lines on the infamy of the Bush administration, the urgency of universal health care and the unfairness of Republican economic policies.

But he connected most when he spoke of his willingness to oppose the Iraq War when many, including Clinton, didn’t. This marked his liberation from Republican bullying on national security. He spoke of the surge of young people into politics and the extraordinary levels of participation in the Democratic primaries. This spoke to his party’s desire to be liberated from the old math of the Reagan era.

And on it went: He noted the multitude he drew to a rally in Boise, Idaho, of all places (liberation from the old electoral map); the support he has won from Republicans (liberation from divisiveness); and his determination to govern “not by the polls but by principle” (liberation from calculation and, to some, from Clintonism).

All this strikes Hillary Clinton’s supporters as terribly unfair. Some liberals who support Obama acknowledge privately that many of her positions on domestic issues are more carefully crafted and, in some respects, more liberal than his.

Continue reading →

Though few are paying attention now, the vote could impact November’s General Election.
by Jonathan Nack
San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center

Ignored by the corporate media, and derided by even many of their progressive and left-wing friends, registrants of California’s two leftist ballot eligible parties will also be voting in tomorrow’s Presidential primary in California. The decision these voters make will have implications on the General Election in November.

While blacked out of establishment mass media coverage, the California Green Party and Peace and Freedom Party primaries are stories of note and import. Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, and perennial candidate Ralph Nader headline fields of candidates on the ballots for both parties. In addition to these two nationally known leaders, lesser-known candidates include Bay Area socialist leader Gloria La Riva, who is competing for the Peace and Freedom Party nomination. Interested readers can check out all the candidate statements on line.

Cynthia McKinney is a rare example of a long-time Democratic Party politician, who served six terms in Congress, and who jumped from the Democrats to the Greens late last year. In abandoning hope in the Democrats, she’s embraced the Green Party as building an alternative. She’s since campaigned in 21 states, frequently appearing with Green Party candidates for local office.

McKinney is a seasoned and skilled politician, well versed on the issues, articulate, and courageously outspoken. An African American, who spent twelve years in Congress representing one of the poorest districts in the country, McKinney has the potential to get a hearing beyond the mainly White audiences whom generally receive the Green Party message.

Ralph Nader announced last week that he was forming an exploratory committee, so he’s not even committed to running yet. While it’s quite late in the primary season to begin exploring a candidacy, Nader’s name recognition, his unwavering anti-corporate message, his considerable network of supporters, and his past ability to run campaigns in all fifty states, make him an instant player.

Nader has said that if he runs, it will be as an independent, but he will seek the nomination of the Green Party, and other small left parties which have ballot lines in some states. In most states, he’d petition to make the November ballot as an independent.

The story of how both McKinney and Nader each came to be on both the Green Party and Peace and Freedom Party ballots has yet to be told. It’s part of the story of how the U. S. left continues to search for relevance in elections. Each had enough support in each party to be nominated. Nader wasn’t even officially exploring a candidacy at the time he was nominated. McKinney was nominated as a Peace and Freedom candidate, even though she has publicly registered as a Green.

Continue reading →

By  Robin Morgan

“Goodbye To All That” was my (in)famous 1970 essay breaking free from a politics of accommodation especially affecting women (for an online version, click here.)

During my decades in civil-rights, anti-war, and contemporary women’s movements, I’ve avoided writing another specific “Goodbye . . .”. But not since the suffrage struggle have two communities–the joint conscience-keepers of this country–been so set in competition, as the contest between Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) and Barack Obama (BO) unfurls. So.

Goodbye to the double standard . . .

* Hillary is too ballsy but too womanly, a Snow Maiden who’s emotional, and so much a politician as to be unfit for politics.

* She’s “ambitious” but he shows “fire in the belly.”

* When a sexist idiot screamed “Iron my shirt!” at HRC, it was considered amusing; if a racist idiot shouted “Shine my shoes!” at BO, it would’ve inspired hours of airtime and pages of newsprint analyzing our national dishonor.

* Young political Kennedys–Kathleen, Kerry, and Bobby Jr.–all endorsed Hillary. Sen. Ted, age 76, endorsed Obama. If the situation were reversed, pundits would snort “See? Ted and establishment types back her, but the forward-looking generation backs him.” (Personally, I’m unimpressed with Caroline’s longing for the Return of the Fathers. Unlike the rest of the world, Americans have short memories. Me, I still recall Marilyn Monroe’s suicide, and a dead girl named Mary Jo Kopechne in Chappaquiddick.)

Goodbye to the toxic viciousness . . .

Carl Bernstein’s disgust at Hillary’s “thick ankles.” Nixon-trickster Roger Stone’s new Hillary-hating 527 group Citizens United Not Timid” (check the capital letters). John McCain answering “How do we beat the bitch?” with “Excellent question!” Would he have dared reply similarly to “How do we beat the black bastard?” For shame.

Continue reading →

Group has more than 1.7 million members in Super Tuesday states

Today MoveOn voted to endorse Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination. The vote favored Sen. Obama to Sen. Clinton by 70.4 percent to 29.6 percent.

Sen. Obama accepted the endorsement stating: “In just a few years, the members of MoveOn have once again demonstrated that real change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up. From their principled opposition to the Iraq war – a war I also opposed from the start – to their strong support for a number of progressive causes, MoveOn shows what Americans can achieve when we come together in a grassroots movement for change. I thank them for their support and look forward to working with their members in the weeks and months ahead.”

Eli Pariser, MoveOn’s Executive Director, issued the following statement: “Our members’ endorsement of Senator Obama is a clear call for a new America at this critical moment in history. Seven years of the disastrous policies of the Bush Administration have left the country desperate for change. We need a President who will bring to bear the strong leadership and vision required to end the war in Iraq, provide health care to every American, deal with our climate crisis, and restore America’s standing in the world. The enormity of the challenges require someone who knows how to inspire millions to get involved to change the direction of our country, and someone who will be willing to change business as usual in Washington. Senator Barack Obama has proved he can and will be that President.

Continue reading →